William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 5:58 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On 4 Feb 2010, at 21:03, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ]] Nick Kew
>>>
>>> | I don't know if it comes under any of the FSF's exceptions for the
>>> | core toolchain (as in, compiling with gcc and linking glibc doesn't
>>> | bring you under GPL).
>>>
>>> It's a shell script. It's hardly linked into expat or apr-util and
>>> there's no way it can make the generated binaries fall under the GPL.
>>>
>> Yes, I know it's a shell script.
>>
>> The point is, we *are* distributing it!
>>
>
> We aren't disagreeing; that is the point of the RAT tool, to catch things
> like this which we weren't paying attention to, once they had been checked
> out of subversion *and then* packaged for release. It would be great for
> that tool to be more widely used by existing projects, not simply the
> incubating ones :)
>
> And yes, it makes a great argument against autocrap at the ASF;
lol.. +1
The problem I see with this though is that GNU Make tends to be an easy
defacto standard to depend on when creating a portable replacement for
auto*. Which imho really more or less defeats the purpose of caring at
all. (I'm not saying don't care, but to keep it in perspective..)
./C